JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This Writ Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letter Patent Act, Patna read with Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Rules, 1948 is directed against the final judgment dated 07.8.2014 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.2514 of 2004. 2. The short fact involved in the writ appeal is that the respondent was initially appointed as Light Vehicle Driver in IDCO Organisation and was posted at its Angul Division. The respondent was lastly posted in Bolangir Division of IDCO, Bolangir by the order of the Managing Director under communication No.17882 dated 15.10.2001. While the respondent was continuing as such, he was served with a set of charges with the allegations of gross negligence in duty and dis-obedience of orders of the higher authority, misconduct, showing willful in-subordination to the superior Controlling Officers, proved misbehavior to superior officers, colleagues and staff of the Corporation, submission of false vouchers with an intention to misappropriate Corporation funds, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Corporation and wrongful gain to himself. Finding the respondent’s explanation unsatisfactory, he was directed to face enquiry. Basing on the observation and recommendation of the Enquiring Officer, the Disciplinary Authority concluded the Departmental Proceeding with the final order of punishment dismissing the respondent from service as light vehicle Driver in the Corporation with immediate effect. The respondent being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, preferred an Appeal which was also turned down with an order of dismissal. Being aggrieved by the order of Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, the respondent preferred a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in this High Court vide W.P. (C) No.2514 of 2004. While assailing the impugned order, the respondent contended that the enquiry against him was conducted in a manner contrary to OIIDC Employees’ Conduct, Discipline, Appeal and Service Regulations,1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations,1996”) and without giving the respondent a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in a meaningful and effective manner. The respondent also alleged that the Enquiring Officer considered the statements of the departmental witnesses recorded behind back of the respondent. The Disciplinary Authority considering the inquiry report arrived at a proposed order of punishment even before furnishing a copy of the inquiry report to the respondent. The respondent also alleged that the Enquiring Officer considered the statements of the departmental witnesses recorded behind back of the respondent. The Disciplinary Authority considering the inquiry report arrived at a proposed order of punishment even before furnishing a copy of the inquiry report to the respondent. The Disciplinary Authority concluded the matter by observing a mere formality of supplying the copy of the inquiry report before award of the major penalty. The respondent alleged that the procedure adopted by the Disciplinary Authority runs contrary to Regulation, 1996. The respondent also alleged that in spite of his taking several grounds, including the ground of violation of principle of natural justice in the matter of infliction of punishment, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority while refusing the prayer of the respondent for a personal hearing. Not only in total non-consideration of the grounds taken by the respondent but rejection of the appeal is also through a bald non-speaking one lined order, as is clearly borne out from Annexure -9 appended to the writ petition. 3. On their appearance, the present appellants by filing the counter affidavit, while denying all the allegations raised by the respondent against the corporation, specifically contended that the order passed by the appellants are not violative of Regulation 27 of the Regulation, 1996. The appellants refuting the allegations of the respondent submitted that the allegation of violation of principle of natural justice in the Enquiry proceeding is out and out false. The appellants further alleged that the respondent had a chequered career during his incumbency in IDCO at Badmal Division. In a Disciplinary Proceeding against him, he was earlier imposed with punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. There were serious charges involved in the second Departmental Proceeding concerning the present dispute. The Enquiry proceeding as well as the subsequent developments were conducted all in strict consonance with the provision contained in Regulation, 1996 as claimed by the appellants. Finally the appellants claimed that the allegation that the witnesses have been examined behind back of the respondent and that he has not been allowed to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, is totally false. It is on the other hand claimed that the respondent himself signed the statements of witnesses recorded by the Enquiring Officer which is a clear indication of his not choosing to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. It is on the other hand claimed that the respondent himself signed the statements of witnesses recorded by the Enquiring Officer which is a clear indication of his not choosing to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. It is claimed that the enquiry was not only conducted in a fair and impartial manner but the Disciplinary Authority also concluded the proceeding following all requirements of law. It is in these premises, the appellants claimed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Considering the rival contentions of both parties and taking into consideration the provisions contained in Regulation, 1996, the Hon’ble Single Judge came to observe as follows: “ xxxx xxx xxxx As it appears, admittedly in the instant case, the enquiry was conducted by an Enquiring Officer, who was not the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, while considering the enquiry report, duty was casted on the Disciplinary Authority to consider the records of enquiry and record its finding on each charge. xxx xxx xxx The Enquiry proceeding was conducted in gross violation of the provisions contained in Clause -(i) of Regulation -28 of Regulations, 1996.” Considering the allegation of violation of principle of natural justice, the Hon’ble Single Judge observed as follows: “ xxx xxx xxx Therefore, the conclusion is irresistible that the enquiry was conducted contrary to the 1996 Regulations due to non-affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; thereby there was violation of principles of natural justice by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Enquiring Authority.” 5. Relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others vrs. B.Karunakar and Others, reported in AIR 1994 S.C 1074 , Hon’ble Single Judge came to observe as follows: “ xxx xxx xxx But in the present case, the Disciplinary Authority supplied the copy of the Enquiry report while proposing imposition of major penalty i.e. dismissal from service. Therefore, the action taken by the Disciplinary Authority being not in consonance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & others (Supra) read with Regulations,1996 can not be allowed to prevail.” 6. Similarly considering a decision in the case of Union of India & Others vrs. Therefore, the action taken by the Disciplinary Authority being not in consonance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & others (Supra) read with Regulations,1996 can not be allowed to prevail.” 6. Similarly considering a decision in the case of Union of India & Others vrs. R.P. Singh, decided on 22.5.2014 in Civil Appeal No.6717 of 2008, the Hon’ble Single Judge deciding on the question of back wages directed for de novo enquiry and gave the final direction which runs as follows: “ Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court has no hesitation to quash the order of punishment of dismissal, vide Annexure-9,the same being in violation of the 1996 Regulations read with the principles of natural justice. As consequence thereof, the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service with consequential service benefits admissible to him in accordance with law granting liberty to the authority to proceed with the enquiry de novo in conformity with the provisions of law by affording opportunity to the petitioner in compliance with the principles of natural justice.” 7. In assailing the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.2514 of 2004, the appellants i.e. Establishment raised two vital grounds. The first ground of attack of the appellants-Establishment is that the finding of the Hon’ble Single Judge so far it relates to the Enquiry proceeding vitiates for being contrary to the provisions contained in Regulations, 1996 and that the proceeding was concluded without giving opportunity of natural justice to the delinquent is not only wrong but also being contrary to the pleadings and materials available on record. The second limb of argument of the establishment is that the Hon’ble Single Judge while allowing the writ petition directing for de novo enquiry, ought not have directed for reinstatement of the delinquent with consequential service benefits admissible to him in accordance with law. 8. In substantiating his argument, Mr. The second limb of argument of the establishment is that the Hon’ble Single Judge while allowing the writ petition directing for de novo enquiry, ought not have directed for reinstatement of the delinquent with consequential service benefits admissible to him in accordance with law. 8. In substantiating his argument, Mr. Abhijit Pattnaik, learned counsel for the appellants while reiterating all his stands taken before the Hon’ble Single Judge, further submitted that the findings of the Hon’ble Single Judge both on account of the Disciplinary proceeding vitiated for its being contrary to the Regulation, 1996 as well as for violation of principle of natural justice, are not only perverse but also contrary to the materials available on record. Mr.Pattnaik also contended that the direction part so far it relates to reinstatement of the delinquent along with grant of all service benefits in accordance with law, also remain contrary to a decision in the case of U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. vrs. P.C. Chaturvedi and Others, reported in (2005) 8 SCC-211. Mr.Pattnaik particularly referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph-18 of the said judgment contended that the direction, so far it relates to grant of consequential service benefits admissible to him in accordance with law, can not be sustainable. 9. During course of argument, Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has a fair submission to the Court that the enquiry report along with some other documents were all supplied to the delinquent-respondent at the stage of second show cause by the Disciplinary Authority. It is in these circumstances, it is now relevant to consider the particular provision of the Regulations, 1996. Regulation – 27(vii) dealing with the provision for consideration of the documentary evidence and the cross-examination thereof, reads as follows: “27.(vii): The Enquiring Officer shall in the course of the enquiry, consider such documentary evidence as may be relevant or material in regard to the charges. The employee shall be entitled to cross examine witnesses examined in support of the charges and to give evidence in person. The “Presenting Officer” shall be entitled to cross examine the employee and the witnesses examined in his/her defence. The employee shall be entitled to cross examine witnesses examined in support of the charges and to give evidence in person. The “Presenting Officer” shall be entitled to cross examine the employee and the witnesses examined in his/her defence. The Enquiring Officer may decline to examine any witness, if he considers that his/her evidence is not relevant or material: in which case, the reasons shall be recorded in writing.” Similarly Regulations-28(I) reads as follows: “The Disciplinary Authority, if it is not itself the Enquiring Officer, shall consider the record of the enquiry and record its findings on each charge.” Reading of the provision contained in Regulations-27(VII) it is apparent that the duty of the Enquiring Officer is not only to consider such evidence as may be relevant or material in regard to the charges in course of enquiry but the employee shall also be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses examined in support of the charges and to give evidence in person. In spite of clear allegation of the respondent – delinquent that he has not been provided with an opportunity to cross-examine the departmental witnesses after recording of his statement even though the Department opposed the stand of the delinquent saying that the delinquent himself chose not to cross-examine the witnesses but no materials what-so-ever was produced before the Hon’ble Single Judge to establish their such contention. This is definitely a deliberate omission on the part of the department for disclosure of the reality. Under the circumstances, this Court finds the observation of the Hon’ble Single Judge with regard to non-compliance of the provision contained in Regulation-27(vii) is well founded and infallible. Now coming to the question of compliance of Regulation-28(i) of Regulations,1996, on perusal of the pleadings of the parties and records available, this Court further observes that the appellants have miserably failed in establishing their contention that the Disciplinary Authority had recorded its finding on each charges in terms of the requirement of Regulation-28(i) of Regulations,1996 and consequently finds the observation of the Hon’ble Single Judge in the aforesaid regard remains unambiguous and does not need any scrutiny. This Court on further perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others vrs. This Court on further perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others vrs. B.Karunakar and Others, reported in AIR 1994 S.C-1074 also finds, the observation of the Hon’ble Single Judge gets full support of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Now coming to the question of grant of ultimate relief by the Hon’ble Single Judge, Mr.Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that even assuming that there is a requirement of de novo enquiry, the respondent would have been at best entitled to reinstatement in service and the question of back wages should have been left to be decided by employer. In raising his such contention, Mr.Pattnaik, learned counsel for the appellants, relying on a decision in the case of U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. vrs. P.C. Chaturvedi and Others, reported in (2005) 8 SCC-211, draws the attention of this Court to paragraph-18 of the aforesaid judgment and contended that the direction “termed consequential service benefits admissible to him in accordance with law” is contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this part of the impugned judgment should be set aside. There is no denial to the fact that the respondent was not under suspension during the period of Disciplinary proceeding and the respondent was a full fledged employee till the final order of dismissal was passed. Thus while directing for conducting a de novo enquiry, the Hon’ble Single Judge had no other option than to restore the position of the respondent as on the date of order of dismissal existed and the natural fall out would be immediate reinstatement of service of the delinquent. Coming to the question of consequential service benefits, this Court, considering the submissions of Mr.Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, observes that the direction of the Hon’ble Single Judge for release of consequential service benefits admissible to the employee in accordance with law remained unambiguous. The appellant’s plea that while granting reinstatement of the delinquent, no direction should have been given for release of back wages pending a de novo enquiry, remain wholly unfounded. The Hon’ble Single Judge in simple term has directed for release of consequential service benefits admissible to the delinquent in accordance with law. The appellant’s plea that while granting reinstatement of the delinquent, no direction should have been given for release of back wages pending a de novo enquiry, remain wholly unfounded. The Hon’ble Single Judge in simple term has directed for release of consequential service benefits admissible to the delinquent in accordance with law. Thus, the delinquent would be entitled only to the entitlements in terms of law and the direction of the Hon’ble single Judge can not be construed otherwise. Perused the decision cited at the instance of the respondent in the case of U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. vrs. P.C. Chaturvedi and Others, reported in (2005) 8 SCC-211. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court was passed relying on a previous decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others vrs. B. Karunakar and Others, reported in AIR (1993) 4 S.C.C-727. In paragraph-31 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “Hence, in all cases where the enquiry officer's report is not furnished to the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings, the Courts and Tribunal's should cause the copy of the report to be furnished to the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured it before coming to the Court/Tribunal and give the employee an opportunity to show how his or her case was prejudiced because of the non-supply of the report. If after hearing the parties, the Court/Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the non-supply of the report would have made no difference to the ultimate findings and the punishment given, the Court/Tribunal should not interfere with the order of punishment. The Court/Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished as is regrettably being done at present. The courts should avoid resorting to short cuts. Since it is the Courts/Tribunals which will apply their judicial mind to the question and give their reasons for setting aside or not setting aside the order of punishment, (and not any internal appellate or revisional authority), there would be neither a breach of the principles of natural justice nor a denial of the reasonable opportunity. It is only if the Court/Tribunal finds that the furnishing of the report would have made a difference to the result in the case that it should set aside the order of punishment. It is only if the Court/Tribunal finds that the furnishing of the report would have made a difference to the result in the case that it should set aside the order of punishment. Where after following the above procedure, the Court/Tribunal sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief that should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the authority/management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report. The question whether the employee would be entitled to the back-wages and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement if ultimately ordered, should invariably be left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings and depending on the final outcome. If the employee succeeds in the fresh inquiry and is directed to be reinstated, the authority should be at liberty to decide according to law how it will treat the period from the date of dismissal till the reinstatement and to what benefits, if any and the extent of the benefits, he will be entitled. The reinstatement made as a result of the setting aside of the inquiry for failure to furnish the report, should be treated as a reinstatement for the purpose of holding the fresh inquiry from the stage of furnishing the report and no more, where such fresh inquiry is held. That will also be the correct position in law." That being so, direction for payment of full back salary and consequential benefits cannot be sustained.” Similarly the Hon’ble Apex Court, in an unreported case between Union of India & Others vrs. R.P. Singh, decided on 22.5.2014 in Civil Appeal No.6717 of 2008, while confirming the aforesaid settled position of law in paragraph-25, has observed as follows: “ The question whether the employee would be entitle to the back wages and other benefits from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement, if ultimately ordered, should invariably left to be decided by the authority concerned. According to law, after culmination of the proceeding and on the final outcome.” This Court finds law on the aforesaid legal point already established. According to law, after culmination of the proceeding and on the final outcome.” This Court finds law on the aforesaid legal point already established. From the tenor of the direction of the Hon’ble Single Judge, this Court further observes that Hon’ble Single Judge having directed for grant of consequential service benefits in accordance with law, the direction of the Hon’ble Single Judge remained unambiguous, consequently needs no interference/clarification. Under the aforesaid reasons and proposition of law reflected hereinabove, this Court holds that the appellants have failed on all the counts. Thus, this Court while confirming the decision in the W.P. (C) No.2514 of 2004, dismisses this Writ Appeal. Parties are to bear their respective cost.